Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.
A filtered version of the page that excludes nominations of pages in the draft namespace is available at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts.
Information on the process
What may be nominated for deletion here:
- Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
- Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
- Files in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
- Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.
Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.
Before nominating a page for deletion
Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:
Deleting pages in your own userspace |
|
Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
Alternatives to deletion |
|
Alternatives to MfD |
|
Please familiarize yourself with the following policies
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
- Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
- Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
- Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
- Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes
How to list pages for deletion
Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:
Instructions on listing pages for deletion:
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted) Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.
|
Administrator instructions
V | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 136 | 35 | 171 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 20 | 36 | 56 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 |
Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.
Archived discussions
A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.
Current discussions
- Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.
April 16, 2022
User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Kuril Islands
- User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Kuril Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
So obscure that hardly anyone will use it, this userbox was created by a user known for supporting Soviet/Russian propaganda and Russian irredentism, on top of that. —Sundostund (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as propaganda. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Monster Assignment
- Draft:Monster Assignment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
WP:NOTWEBHOST violation. This is a homework assignment someone has decided to host on Wikipedia McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, obvious WP:NOT. Dronebogus (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete not encyclopedic. Llwyld (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOT what we're are here for. SN54129 11:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral - Once a draft has been rejected, and isn't vandalism or an attack page, there is no harm in letting it rot for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
April 15, 2022
User:XKV8R
- User:XKV8R (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Violates WP:NOTWEBHOST but unqualified for U5 so here we are. This page, and User:XKV8R/CV, are blatant self promotion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - This would have been a valid draft that would probably have been declined. If it had been a draft, it would have expired as WP:G13G13 by now. As a user page, it is a fake article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - If it were in draftspace it would have expired, but it's in userspace and therefore does not expire. Lots of people write biographies of themselves on their user page. If there's confusion about whether this is an article, there are templates to make it clear. I don't think we should be saying people can't put biographical information on their own user page so long as they're WP:HERE. With a few thousand edits, that seems the case here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- The amount of links on the userpage is against WP:NOTCV which states that
Limited autobiographical information is allowed, but user pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia.
. The user's live edits within userspace is standing at ~25% (~500/~2000) and I believe that out of the 1300+ deleted edits, a large majority of them were edits at User:XKV8R/CV. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)- In practice, we give a huge amount of leeway to all but new users to write about themselves and add random information about their interests that have little to do with Wikipedia (cf. most userboxes). But even if it were the case that this is too much, that doesn't mean we need to delete the history. There are options like trimming/blanking that come before that (although blanking here wouldn't be appropriate because there are multiple sections explicitly connected to their wiki activities). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- The amount of links on the userpage is against WP:NOTCV which states that
April 14, 2022
Draft:Shade (Grouper album)
- Draft:Shade (Grouper album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Abandoned and redundant draft now that a separate Shade (Grouper album) exists in mainspace — Kawnhr (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete via G7. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy Redirect to Shade (Grouper album). Why are editors in a hurry to get rid of drafts when there is an article? Probably because they don't know about SRE. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Damed Imanov
- Draft:Damed Imanov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
All of the sources are unreliable. I can easily see that, this sources were created for PR purposes. In government sources, his name is listed. This is not adequate for WP:GNG. Also, this article was created by a globally locked user. In my opinion, this article needs to be deleted. Kadı Message 18:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - On the one hand, the sourcing issues, which have to do with notability, are not a reason to delete a draft. On the other hand, its creation by a user who has subsequently been banned is a reason to delete (although not a reason for G5 because user was not blocked at time of creation). Also, previous deletion of article means that draft will not satisfy notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damed Imanov. Previously deleted, and work of banned user. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly a sea-faring person with an award from the President. Draft is written like a Press Release (plagiarism from the sources, after using translate.google.com) I'd question if these sources are independent. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Talk:2022 Pacific typhoon season/ACE calcs
- Talk:2022 Pacific typhoon season/ACE calcs (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
There is a standing WP:WPTC consensus that JTWC data should not be used for calculating ACE as it's not RSMC data. There is also consensus that we need to stop calculating ACE on our own. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - I am in agreement with Jasper that we shouldn't calculate the Accumulated Cyclonic Energy that a season has as it smacks of original research in my opinion. For the Western Pacific in particular we can not derive just one number based on one warning centre as unlike other basins there is no single voice with each NMHSS deciding how intense a system is based on a variety of factors. As a result, I am forced to vote delete to this research page.Jason Rees (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - This is original research, but should have been discussed with the WikiProject (even if the WikiProject is on trial). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - I would !vote to delete if I could verify the consensuses at WP:WPTC that the nom mentioned, but all I found was a consensus that self-calculated ACE data may be used absent any official data. WikiProject Tropical Cyclones doesn't seem to all agree on whether or not the ACE calcs they produce violate WP:NOR, but if they ever do agree that they are an unacceptable violation of the policy against original research, then all of the countless "/ACE calcs" subpages out there will have to be nominated for deletion en masse. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
April 13, 2022
User:Bmhatten/sandbox
- User:Bmhatten/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Autobiography of not notable author. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - It's in a sandbox. Would need rejecting if submitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - sandboxes don't have to be notable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Template:User Ez
- Template:User Ez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
There is no such language that exist or EZ code does not exist. Airtransat236 (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Kurmanji#Dialect continuum. Dortana (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The code needs to be changed to KMR per Template:Lang-kmr. This is a dialect of Category:User templates ku. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Rename to KMR-EZ Airtransat236 (let's talk) 16:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
April 12, 2022
Wikipedia:WikiProject Johns Hopkins
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Johns Hopkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Stillborn WikiProject. A lot of infrastructure has been set up, but there is no actual group of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia
* Pppery * it has begun... 22:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a different case where we have a portal which never took off and nothing can be salvaged. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - I was about to !vote "weak keep" because this is a very new WikiProject that was started less than a couple of weeks ago, but then I realized they didn't actually set up any of the infrastructure. This is a copy-paste fork of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. They didn't even try to edit anything, not even the description. They created this a couple of weeks ago and left it as-is. The scope is also very, very narrow - a whole WikiProject dedicated to the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine article? Vanilla Wizard 💙 02:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per Vanilla Wizard, project is less stillborn than still in the womb but lacking fetal viability. Aborting it is probably the best way to go. Dronebogus (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
User:CrazyMinecart88/user zalgo
- User:CrazyMinecart88/user zalgo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
When used, this template can interfere with the interface by overrunning other elements, such as the control bars. — xaosflux Talk 02:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. This user box, which uses zalgo text, absolutely violates WP:SMI. We do not allow any kind of code, content, characters, styles, scripts, or other kinds of data that causes interference with the MediaWiki interface, or the page's content, links, or their normal purposes. This text overwrites the interface, other content and links, and is really just a nuisance that doesn't belong here. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Purely disruptive and wildly outside Wikipedia's purpose. Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: Somewhat surprised that an admin has not heard of this thing called WP:G2 and WP:G3,(joke) which clearly applies here...(not a joke) (speedy delete if it wasn't clear enough) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- G2 clearly doesn't apply as the page is in the creater's userspace. And I doubt I could call this page blatant vandalism. 93.172.232.172 (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian I am generally very tolerant of experiments in userspace. — xaosflux Talk 09:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Userboxen should not be used for disruptive text that breaks the interface of a page. Hog Farm Talk 03:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The text in the userbox obstructs the MFD banner, which is a violation of SMI. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 05:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, these sorts of characters can also disrupt screen readers like the one I use (see this technical village pump thread I started). This example doesn't have much effect on my computer unlike the one cited in that thread (because the latter example had much more text), but it still makes absolutely no sense to me and I definitely don't think it should be a userbox. Graham87 06:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Purely disruptive and especially damaging to blind readers and editors. Cullen328 (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete because of the screen-reader disruption. Miniapolis 22:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment this kind of thing is de rigeur on April Fools; since this discussing can only deal with the deletion of an individual page, perhaps a broader discussion need take place. Disruption is, after all, disruption, regardless of the calendar. SN54129 10:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129 my nomination of this is atomic, being that it is created for use as a template by others and is actually being used by others - if this was some sort of one-day experiment or some sort of sandbox test I wouldn't have nominated. I don't think this discussion should equate to a ban on any occurrence of zalgo text in any situation. — xaosflux Talk 10:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this discussion should equate to a ban on any occurrence of zalgo text in any situation
: of course not; as I said, it couldn't. 🙄 SN54129 10:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129 my nomination of this is atomic, being that it is created for use as a template by others and is actually being used by others - if this was some sort of one-day experiment or some sort of sandbox test I wouldn't have nominated. I don't think this discussion should equate to a ban on any occurrence of zalgo text in any situation. — xaosflux Talk 10:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. User pages which block, or animate objects on the screen should be deleted. At best they are distracting, at worse they block UI elements. If users want to create their own Geocities page, then there are other places they can do that. Gonnym (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Purely disruptive. I concur with previous comments. I learned what zalgo is, and sort of wish I hadn't, because it is a nuisance. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - as disruptive. I think the text is really inventive here, but unfortunately it tends to make things buggy. Best to leave this thing outside of Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Killed in Moscow in 1993
- User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Killed in Moscow in 1993 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
An obscure userbox, unlikely to be used by anyone, created by a user known for pushing Soviet/Russian propaganda. —Sundostund (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- weak delete per nom, more useless than offensive. Dronebogus (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Meh. It's in userspace, so doesn't have to be useful to anyone else. If the primary objection is that it's in the userbox category, I don't object to removing it. On the fence about deletion. Looking at some of these noms, I think a group nom might've been appropriate given these userboxes are basically all this user has done on enwp. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Andropov
- User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Andropov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Created by a user known for pushing Soviet/Russian propaganda, the sole purpose of this minimally used, rather bizarre userbox is to glorify Yuri Andropov as the only "normal" (hardcore Stalinist) Soviet leader since the death of Stalin in 1953. —Sundostund (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete pro-authoritarian tankiebox, but more importantly who actually cares enough about this guy to use this thing? No-one, as it turns out. Dronebogus (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus: Don't be so rough; obviously, the tankie who created this userbox cares very much about Andropov ;) —Sundostund (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone here can define the word "normal" which has no agreed upon definition. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment @Knowledgekid87: IMHO, in this context the word "normal" is an anti-revisionist POV. Its intention is to present Soviet leaders from Stalin to Andropov as being "not normal", for not adhering to the principles of hardcore Stalinism, and being revisionists instead. —Sundostund (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Bizarre, useless, unused, and likely intended to be an endorsement of Andropov's Stalin-esque policies. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Killed in Odessa in 2014
- User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Killed in Odessa in 2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Created by a user known for pushing Soviet/Russian propaganda, this userbox was apparently intended to present the Russian side as victims in the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. —Sundostund (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak delete neither side looks particularly good here, and the event was internationally regarded as a tragedy. But context obviously implies this is supposed to be promoting the pro-Russian wing as political martyrs and not show sympathy to victims of civil unrest. Dronebogus (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep. This is per the article (sourced from the Ministry of Internal Affairs -Ukraine): "Later reports showed that none of the identified victims was from Russia or Transnistria. Out of the 48 people killed, 46 were from Odessa or Odessa region, one from Mykolaiv Oblast and one from Vinnytsia." Hence there is no evidence that the people burned that day were activists or were from Russia. Maybe the userbox can be re-worded? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment @Knowledgekid87: Nobody claimed that the people burned that day were from Russia. They were locals from southwestern/southern Ukraine, supporting Russia during the 2014 unrest. This userbox is not intended to show sympathy for them, but to present them as victims/martyrs of a "genocide" perpetrated by Ukraine. —Sundostund (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per Sundostund, the userbox's decision to be in the Soviet colors of red and gold (as many of this user's more propagandistic ones are) isn't helping anything either. This is just one of many userboxes created for the sole purpose of depicting Ukraine as a barbaric anti-Russian state, not to respectfully honor those who died. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/SCSE
- User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/SCSE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Beside being minimally used, this userbox was created with only purpose to push for pro-Soviet historical revisionism of the events surrounding the 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt. —Sundostund (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- delete not because it’s particularly inflammatory (compared with this user’s other boxes like the “murder Trotskyists with an ice pick” one) but because it’s so obscure nobody’s going to use it. Dronebogus (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Mariofan3/Snowtab in the Void: Road to Christmas
- User:Mariofan3/Snowtab in the Void: Road to Christmas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
WP:NOTWEBHOST fake article Dronebogus (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - it's a userspace draft. notwebhost is about material unrelated to Wikipedia. a draft is related to Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Mariofan3/List of South City High episodes
- User:Mariofan3/List of South City High episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Fake article. WP:NOTWEBHOST. No evidence of notability Dronebogus (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - it's a userspace draft. notwebhost is about material unrelated to Wikipedia. a draft is related to Wikipedia. userspace drafts don't have to be notable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Mariofan3/List of Snowtab in the Void episodes
- User:Mariofan3/List of Snowtab in the Void episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Fake article for non-notable web series, WP:NOTWEBHOST abuse Dronebogus (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - it's a userspace draft. notwebhost is about material unrelated to Wikipedia. a draft is related to Wikipedia. userspace drafts don't have to be notable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mariofan3/Snowtab in the Void |
---|
The result of the discussion was: (speedy) deleted by User:Orangemike per U5 and this discussion. (non-admin closure) —GMX(on the go!) 19:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC) User:Mariofan3/Snowtab in the Void
Fake article for non-notable web series, WP:NOTWEBHOST abuse Dronebogus (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
|
User:Mariofan3/Rom Hack Reviews
- User:Mariofan3/Rom Hack Reviews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Fake article for non-notable web series, WP:NOTWEBHOST abuse Dronebogus (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment All of the subpages of User:Mariofan3 should be bundled together, as the same deletion rationale applies to all of them. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete None of these are actually userspace drafts, they describe them as fake articles themselves. If I'm not mistaken, these hardly even count as WP:FANCRUFT because these are about the editor's own YouTube channel. All of these fake articles are about a supposedly very popular series created by someone named "Ryan Jay", which just happens to be this editor's signature. This is their IMDb page and this is their YouTube channel. I have a feeling this is all they're on the encyclopedia for judging by how they reacted to their sandbox being nominated for deletion. Fandom is definitely the website they're looking for. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - If they're sufficiently self-promotional to be deleted, tag them for CSD. Otherwise, they're just userspace drafts. Nobody will ever see them other than people looking for stuff to delete in other people's userspace. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
April 11, 2022
User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Antitrotskyist
- User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Antitrotskyist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Trotsky was murdered with an ice axe, which is what’s depicted in this userbox. Though there’s nothing offensive about the text, an image is worth a thousand words— even if this happened ages ago it’s still basically endorsing the assassination of political enemies. Dronebogus (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Its inexcusable and unacceptable to create userboxes with the intention to condone murder of people, regardless of the fact when the murder in question happened. —Sundostund (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - I normally avoid userbox deletion debates, but this is a special case, because, as the nominator notes, it is endorsing, if not the assassination of political enemies in general, one historical assassination. Wikipedia has No Nazis largely because the Nazis were political murderers, and all political murder must be condemned. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment @Dronebogus, Sundostund, and Robert McClenon: I made an attempt to salvage this userbox. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment @Knowledgekid87: Your attempt to salvage this userbox seems quite legitimate to me, but the fact remains that, even if modified as you proposed, the history of this userbox will still contain something highly unacceptable (its original version). I still think its necessary to expunge it through deletion. My advice to you would be to create a completely new Antitrotskyist userbox, as you proposed it here, while this one should remain a subject for deletion. —Sundostund (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah I see that as an issue, I was just trying to show that you can make something acceptable out of the situation. I really have no opinion on Trotskyism here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t either. But I think the revisions need deletion Dronebogus (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- The ones condoning murder I mean Dronebogus (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t either. But I think the revisions need deletion Dronebogus (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah I see that as an issue, I was just trying to show that you can make something acceptable out of the situation. I really have no opinion on Trotskyism here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete The salvage attempt is appreciated, but I agree with Sundostund that the original was so egregiously unacceptable that it'd be better to make a new one for people who disagree with the ideology than to salvage one that originally explicitly endorsed homicide. Userboxes are cheap to make and cheap to delete, after all. Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as it doesn't explicitly endorse/condone political assassination. I'd agree that's an interpretation of it but it doesn't say that on the tin. ToeSchmoker (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The photo in the userbox is of Trotsky in 1924; I don't see how that image is disruptive or expresses a murderous message. An infobox containing
this user opposes communism
with a picture of Karl Marx would not be so inflammatory or disruptive as to warrant deletion. Likewise, a userbox that contains an image of Trotsky and expresses a disapproval of the ideology doesn't violate WP:UBX. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)- It was altered. The deletion request has been disrupted by this change so I’m reverting even though it’s in good faith. Dronebogus (talk) 04:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus: Thank you for your revert, its the only logical way to avoid confusion here. @Mhawk10: I think you may want to reconsider your vote, now when you can see the userbox in its original state, as its creator envisioned it. —Sundostund (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund and Dronebogus: From what I'm seeing, a user attempted to modify the userbox so that it would be compliant with WP:UBX, which was subsequently reverted by the nominator arguing that it hurt deletion arguments. That isn't a good reason for reverting an edit; in almost any other deletion discussion, destroying all attempts to improve the entity nominated for deletion would not be seen as productive. While the original version of the userbox clearly violates the guideline, the current version does not. That a previous version of a page was a violation of WP:UBX is not a valid deletion reason. If I wanted to delete a page because of this edit, even though the current version of that anti-anarchist userbox is fine, then my nomination would be moot. The same applies here. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I'd agree that the example you linked to is analogous; I think there's a meaningful difference between pages that happen to have a bad revision and pages that were created for the wrong reasons. Difference between an article that was vandalized once and an article that was made as an attack page. Userboxes in particular tend to be created with a specific message and purpose in mind, so while some can be salvaged, the most extreme ones are better off being deleted than turned into loosely related inoffensive ones. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund and Dronebogus: From what I'm seeing, a user attempted to modify the userbox so that it would be compliant with WP:UBX, which was subsequently reverted by the nominator arguing that it hurt deletion arguments. That isn't a good reason for reverting an edit; in almost any other deletion discussion, destroying all attempts to improve the entity nominated for deletion would not be seen as productive. While the original version of the userbox clearly violates the guideline, the current version does not. That a previous version of a page was a violation of WP:UBX is not a valid deletion reason. If I wanted to delete a page because of this edit, even though the current version of that anti-anarchist userbox is fine, then my nomination would be moot. The same applies here. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus: Thank you for your revert, its the only logical way to avoid confusion here. @Mhawk10: I think you may want to reconsider your vote, now when you can see the userbox in its original state, as its creator envisioned it. —Sundostund (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- It was altered. The deletion request has been disrupted by this change so I’m reverting even though it’s in good faith. Dronebogus (talk) 04:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Delete This picture encourages murder. Illegal under the first amendment, illegal under wikipedia. User:Mr Reading Turtle
April 10, 2022
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Vinesauce |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep (withdrawn by nominator) (non-admin closure) Elli (talk | contribs) 03:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Draft:Vinesauce
Drafts aren't typically eligible for deletion per WP:NMFD so I can't say I feel very passionately about this MfD, but this one in particular has had its G13 clock reset for the last year through some sparse and minor edits. The only significant edit in the last twelve months was one edit which added a source to it five months ago. My understanding of the "So when is MfD appropriate?" section of Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity leads me to believe that this nomination could be appropriate. I'm also interested in giving it a fresh start since this mess of a draft has been submitted to AfC over and over again without it ever being substantially improved. I know WP:TNT isn't policy and there's differing views on deletion as a method of cleanup, but I believe this draft is too unsalvageable to fix without replacing nearly every byte of it and that the most productive path forward for it is to delete it without prejudice and start a new one. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Portal:Tennis
- Portal:Tennis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Unmaintained and out of date—the "Upcoming tournaments" section includes tournaments that became defunct 5+ years ago—so does a disservice to readers and reflects poorly on Wikipedia. Receives just 20 views per day despite being linked on 55000 pages including articles that get millions of views a year, e.g. Serena Williams. Letcord (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Redundant and inferior to Tennis and Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Another useless portal SK2242 (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep When you have an article that has been here and been used (by no matter how few) for 15 years you would never just delete it. Perhaps someone would want to fix it up better. I would redirect it to Tennis or Outline of tennis until such time that someone would like to tackle an upgrade. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Is there any reason to think that will happen? Portals are slowly dying, not being built anew. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have suggested redirecting as a method of archive before, but no one interested in portals seems interested. I guess it’s not as if there is actual unique content in the portal, so it doesn’t matter. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: But redirects are cheap. They give an added bonus that if someone does want to take on the updating it can be done in the same style and not from scratch. And yes it archives which is important. It seems like a no brainer to me that we would redirect the page unless someone wants to do the work right now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep –
- I removed the outdated Tournaments section (diff). This took a matter of seconds to accomplish.
- The portal contains links to high-quality subject and biographical articles.
- The portal is a useful navigation tool.
- The portal would benefit from more links to it in articles, which would then increase the page views it receives. The portal actually has only 1,015 links to it in article namespace.
- The link count cited in the nomination are mostly from the portal template being on the Wikiproject banner template on talk pages, but most readers to not read or navigate from talk pages.
- The portal was significantly updated in May 2020. See the page's Revision history for more information.
- – North America1000 13:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- The outdatedness of the tournaments section reflects the Tennis WikiProject's total disinterest in maintaining this portal; your removal of it doesn't change that. All the high-quality subject and biographical articles are already linked at WP:TENNIS. The "only" 1,015 articles that link to the portal receive 400,000 page views a day; of which 25 (0.00625%) click through to the portal, so in practice it's not a useful navigation tool. "Significantly updated", perhaps, but evidently not by an editor with a enough knowledge of the subject area to realize that a key section was completely out of date. This portal is obviously not wanted by the tennis-editing community, and that is reason enough to delete it as they're needed to keep it properly up-to-date. Letcord (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Easy updates not being done is a sign of its failure.
- The mainspace page is where quality links are to be found.
- If it is useful for navigation, why isn’t it used for navigation?
- The portal would benefit? Does Wikipedia exist to benefit portals? More links from articles would detract from the quality of articles. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- The outdatedness of the tournaments section reflects the Tennis WikiProject's total disinterest in maintaining this portal; your removal of it doesn't change that. All the high-quality subject and biographical articles are already linked at WP:TENNIS. The "only" 1,015 articles that link to the portal receive 400,000 page views a day; of which 25 (0.00625%) click through to the portal, so in practice it's not a useful navigation tool. "Significantly updated", perhaps, but evidently not by an editor with a enough knowledge of the subject area to realize that a key section was completely out of date. This portal is obviously not wanted by the tennis-editing community, and that is reason enough to delete it as they're needed to keep it properly up-to-date. Letcord (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Portal:Tennis:
- In 2021, the portal had 18 average daily pageviews, and the article had 2034 average daily pageviews. In 2020, the portal had 16 average daily pageviews, and the article had 1776 average daily pageviews.
- The number of viewers who find it a useful navigational tool is less than 1% of the viewers who read the article. Portals have two limitations as a navigational tool. First, they only permit the viewer to view the pages that the portal maintainer has already selected, which is less flexible than the use of links or categories. Second, they are only used by viewers who know about and use portals in the first place.
- There is no regular portal maintainer. The portal is maintained occasionally,
especially when there are questions about whether to keep it, bythe WP:Portal rescue squad consisting largely ofUser:Northamerica1000. Northamerica1000 likes portals. User:Northamerica1000 maintains portals either randomly or when they are questions about whether to keep them, functioning as an unofficial WP:Portal rescue squad. - Deletion of a portal does not delete encyclopedic content. It only deletes a navigational tool to information that is normally navigated using links or categories.
- Portals evidently have some mystical value. Some readers and editors either have no use for mysticism, or prefer organized religion.
- There are no guidelines for the keeping or deleting of portals, so that the main guideline is to Use Common Sense.
Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment – regarding
"The portal is maintained occasionally, especially when there are questions about whether to keep it"
above, this is the first time the portal has been nominated for deletion. The portal was not nominated for deletion when I improved it in May 2020. It is quite misleading to suggest otherwise. Also, I am not a member of any rescue project on Wikipedia. It is misleading to suggest otherwise. North America1000 15:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Question – This portal, despite its above-average quality, fails in the usual questions, which have already been widely discussed, unnecessary complexity, excess links, narrow topic (Portal:Sports would be enough), lack of Wikiproject integration and unreferenced content, an example, the quote [1], which does not exist either in the Biographed article or in Wikiquote. The question is... like this portal, It's a problem a portal that was not created and maintained by the related Wikiproject? Analyzing [2] and [3], recently content portals are not being created and maintained by related Wikiprojects.Guilherme Burn (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as I feel the arguments presented here are the same as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Maryland. The standard arguments being "portal topic is too narrow, that there are only a few page views, and that in its current form the portal is selective in a non-NPOV way" versus "broad enough to justify a portal, that the portal can be fixed and that the deletion arguments are not grounded in policy". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- What benefit does an abandoned portal not curated or maintained by editors knowledgeable in the subject-area and not viewed by anyone bring? The years-outdated tournaments section demonstrates that such a portal can be a serious liability, so there should be a clear benefit for it to be worth keeping. Or is there no circumstance in which you'd not vote "keep" for a portal that passes your subjective "broad enough" threshold"? If so just say that.
- There is no specific policy for deleting a portal AFAIK, so arguments cannot be "grounded in policy". Letcord (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Again... you are throwing out the same arguments. There is nobody stopping anyone from maintaining the portal until it meets standards so its a WP:SOFIXIT situation. Your reasoning of page views, maintenance and out of date info is actually covered in arguments to avoid for deletion discussions. These are surmountable issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- What same arguments? I asked you specific questions. ATA is an essay tailored for content-deletion discussions. Portals are not content. Letcord (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- As I said, your arguments about management and dated information. WP:ATA does apply here as portals are considered content on Wikipedia, and the lead of the essay specifically states "this page is tailored to deletion discussion". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's an essay that "has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" which explicitly says "just because an argument appears in this list does not necessarily mean it is always invalid" and that it is "tailored to deletion discussion, be that of articles, templates, images, categories, stub types, or redirects" i.e. not portals. You haven't answered the question about what clear benefit this portal provides that outweighs the cost of it being so unmaintained by knowledgeable tennis editors that it has sat displaying misinformation for 5+ years, something completely antithetical to Wikipedia's purpose as an accurate compendium of knowledge. Letcord (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- As I said, your arguments about management and dated information. WP:ATA does apply here as portals are considered content on Wikipedia, and the lead of the essay specifically states "this page is tailored to deletion discussion". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- What same arguments? I asked you specific questions. ATA is an essay tailored for content-deletion discussions. Portals are not content. Letcord (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Again... you are throwing out the same arguments. There is nobody stopping anyone from maintaining the portal until it meets standards so its a WP:SOFIXIT situation. Your reasoning of page views, maintenance and out of date info is actually covered in arguments to avoid for deletion discussions. These are surmountable issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
April 9, 2022
Months in 1994
- Portal:Current events/January 1994 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Current events/February 1994 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Current events/March 1994 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Current events/May 1994 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Current events/June 1994 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Current events/July 1994 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Current events/August 1994 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Current events/September 1994 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Current events/October 1994 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Current events/November 1994 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Current events/December 1994 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Year 1994 is too early to be part of Portal:Current events. Also, I think that the reason at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Current events/April 1994 also applies to the other months in 1994. This discussion of the cut-off point was archived without resolution, so now here is an MfD hoping to resolve this. Should the 11 month pages be deleted, then their /Calendar subpages (per WP:G8), daily pages in Category:1994 by day, and the category itself should also be deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- delete all hoax pages. OTD can’t predate Wikipedia, obviously, so this is just a confusing abuse of the namespace. Dronebogus (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gloriaberko |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC) User:Gloriaberko
Vandal/troll page Dronebogus (talk) 07:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
|
April 8, 2022
Draft:Princess Pat Akpabio
- Draft:Princess Pat Akpabio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Obvious advert of non-notable preacher Orange Mike | Talk 10:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Drafts aren't required to meet GNG, and it was undeleted by SoWhy at WP:REFUND half an hour before this MfD. The author should be given a chance to rewrite it to make it less like an advert. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep to allow an attempt to clean up a rejected draft. Should be tagged with instructions for reviewers to check history when reviewing. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/tables |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 11:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/tables
Linked for years from Wikipedia:Drafts (I have changed the link to Wikipedia:AfC sorting), this list of drafts by projected quality from ORES has not been updated since 2018. It presumably is no longer useful to the project. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Witt Jr. |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. A (serious) hatnote has been added to the joke AfD, reminding that the AfD is made without the involvement of Bobby Witt Jr., and that it is not intended to insult anyone. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Witt Jr.
As the writer of this joke AfD, I propose that my joke AfD page be deleted. 1. I could have G7'ed it, but the participation of MainPeanut and Bsoyka (both users pinged), which I appreciate, prevents it from being applied. 2. The joke outcome was there (it was "deletion review"), and that could stay on Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2022. NotReallySoroka (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
|
April 7, 2022
User:Geis Knight/Books/media explorer
- User:Geis Knight/Books/media explorer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- User:Geis Knight/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Geis Knight/Books/ȸ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Geis Knight/Books/storage+ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Clear WP:NOTWEBHOST violations that comprise the user's only edits. Wikipedia:Books has been deprecated, and nothing in these books seems salvageable anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The "community maintained" book namespace was depreciated and removed, not the entire book creator, removing that would have to be a decision made by the WMF. It is still possible to and acceptable to use the book creator to make personal books in your own userspace, go to Special:Book, and on demand refunds and userfication was offered when the namespace was deleted. There are currently 51,000 + user namespace books: Category:User namespace book pages. These pages all seem to be sensible attempts at putting together books of articles on related topics, I don't see any compelling reason to delete them. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per 192.76.8.70 `* Pppery * it has begun... 18:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - the books don't become unrelated to Wikipedia just because the Wikipedia tool went away. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Art, For Fucks Sake |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Draft:Art, For Fucks Sake
Pure WP:OR, and depressing since an instructor has set an injudicious project, top the disadvantage of the students. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Undisclosed Jamaican school writing project is discussing the project 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
|
User:S-Kay Kin/sandbox
- User:S-Kay Kin/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Violation of no original research and what Wikipedia is not. Per WP:USERFY#NO, material already not permitted in user namespace is not allowed to be userfied. See also: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Brittany Hudson/sandbox, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender Analysis of "Minty Minty", Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender Theory In 'President Daisy', Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Silk food, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Inability to Smile, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Undisclosed Jamaican school writing project. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 20:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Pure WP:OR, and depressing since an instructor has set an injudicious project, top the disadvantage of the students. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Undisclosed Jamaican school writing project is discussing the project 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - this is clearly a student using their sandbox to try to write and develop wiki articles, which is exactly what the sandbox is for. This stuff gets userfied because userspace is an appropriate place for it. Let the editor practice and make mistakes. No need to delete good-faith attempts at editing when there is no copybio or BLP vio. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all, preferably speedy, as a cocktail of OR, SYNTH, NOTESSAY and NOTHERE. And it's pretty poor to see Wiki Edu condoning this kind of thing. SN54129 12:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per L - this is a sandbox, not a mainspace article wizzito | say hello! 03:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per above. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per L. Nobody will see this apart from the person who wrote it, anyone helping that person, and people digging through other people's userspace looking for stuff to delete. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Inability to Smile |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Draft:The Inability to Smile
Violation of no original research and what Wikipedia is not. Per WP:USERFY#NO, material already not permitted in user namespace is not allowed to be userfied. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender Analysis of "Minty Minty", Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender Theory In 'President Daisy', and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Silk food. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 20:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
|
User:Brittany Hudson/sandbox
- User:Brittany Hudson/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Violation of no original research and what Wikipedia is not. Per WP:USERFY#NO, material already not permitted in user namespace is not allowed to be userfied. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender Analysis of "Minty Minty", Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender Theory In 'President Daisy', and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Silk food. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 20:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Pure WP:OR, and depressing since an instructor has set an injudicious project, top the disadvantage of the students. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Undisclosed Jamaican school writing project is discussing the project 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep — I’m confused by the deletion rationale, since isn’t a user sandbox exactly the place where editors are supposed to develop content that is currently unsuitable for main space? This appears to me to be a good-faith attempt to write article content (whatever the ultimate fate of that content may be) and it is very possible that this preliminary writing could lead the author to useful wiki edits. It is my understanding that a sandbox should only be deleted for much more serious problems like copyvio, BLP offences, or cases where someone is trying to use Wikipedia as free web hosting for unrelated content. Deleting a sandbox in this case feels like biting the newbies. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as per L's rationale; this isn't a mainspace article, this is a user sandbox wizzito | say hello! 03:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and trout nom. I don't see a userfication in the history, so I'm not sure what that sentence of the nomination is about. WP:NOR does not apply to drafts (and not all of this is OR regardless). WP:NOTESSAY might be a basis to delete a userspace page that makes no attempt at encyclopedic content, but this is a draft article! If we deleted every draft that needs serious work to not violate WP:NOT, we'd delete most drafts. If you'd like to explain to the author the ways that Wikipedia articles differ from academic essays, they have a talkpage. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per above. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per L/Tamzin. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BTSkills15/sandbox |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC) User:BTSkills15/sandbox
Only content is an explicit video with the caption “sex”. Basically vandalism, not an appropriate use of userspace Dronebogus (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Queen Unstoppable/Gender Analysis of 'Roll It' |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC) User:Queen Unstoppable/Gender Analysis of 'Roll It'
Violation of no original research and what Wikipedia is not. Per WP:USERFY#NO, material already not permitted in user namespace is not allowed to be userfied. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender Analysis of "Minty Minty", Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender Theory In 'President Daisy', and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Silk food. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 12:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:WEATHERMAN
- Wikipedia:WEATHERMAN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Article presents only a single view or definition of what the phrase means and does not go into depth or talk about any philosophy, approach or standard when it comes to editing or thinking about Wikipedia. I do not believe that providing a link to the essay would assist new users understand what Wikipedia is about. Gusfriend (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete the best “huh what?” statement since “plastics”. Not helpful to anyone, unclear what this even means in regards to WP. Dronebogus (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- I’ve created an advice page that’s equally useful Dronebogus (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, since these two essays seem to be covering essentially the same topic and point of view, they are used in pretty much the same context in discussions, this essay doesn't really add anything that isn't better discussed in the other essay and I don't see how quoting lyrics from a copyrighted song and saying "we should do what this song says" is compatiable with the WP:Non-free content Policy. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Too small to be a copyright violation, if it was Wikiquote wouldn’t exist. Dronebogus (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment If we were to put in a redirect then I would actually prefer WP:SNOW as you can tell which way the wind is blowing, it is all heading in one direction, and it is time to invoke WP:SNOW. Which again highlights the lack of depth or explanation in the article. Gusfriend (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Just because the nom disagrees with the essay is not a valid deletion reason. There are big disclaimers on essays that say they lack community consensus—this is perfectly fine and acceptable for essays. If the essay sucks, you don’t have to cite it and you are free to write a counter-essay. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - This essay doesn't say enough to be worth keeping or deleting, but it isn't against policy, and none of the reasons to delete it apply. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Userify or weak delete. There is no essay here to be kept or deleted, as Robert McClenon correctly pointed out. I don't think it needs to be redirected to WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue because I don't think anyone has ever keyed Wikipedia:WEATHERMAN. This page started as a single vague sentence in 2013, and it was never developed into anything more than that. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Userify or delete. This is vague and confusing as others have already pointed out. I don't see any disagreement with the essay from the nominator, but rather confusion on if its helpful or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue |
---|
The result of the discussion was: WP:SNOW keep. Consensus is overwhelming, the nominator has withdrawn their case for deletion, and there is no reasonable possibility that continued discussion will conclude with any other outcome. BD2412 T 17:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue
I believe this page should be deleted, because as far as I can tell, there is never an acceptable reason for citing it. If another editor has indicated that you need to cite a source for an assertion you make, there are only two possible scenarios: 1) The material is, in fact, not obvious, and you need to cite per WP:V In either case, you should not cite this essay either because of WP:V or because of WP:AGF. Additionally, there appears to be some confusion among the community about the difference between policies and essays, so removing this essay may enlighten some people about the editing policy and how it has not changed over the years.
In addition: If you drop an object whilst standing on the Earth, it will fall and hit the ground.[citation needed] Do we need a citation for that? Is it a violation of WP:V when it would take longer to find a reliable source than to verify it yourself? No matter where you are, or what circumstances you are in? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 13:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
|
April 6, 2022
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Constitutional Republic of Eintrachtia |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. —ScottyWong— 23:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Draft:Constitutional Republic of Eintrachtia
Rejected twice original author continues to delete rejections and resubmit. This is now tedious and not worth keeping. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aerobird/GW Userbox |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. —ScottyWong— 23:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC) User:Aerobird/GW Userbox
I know certain people are going to kick my ass for nominating this, but I think there’s three legitimate reasons:
Dronebogus (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
|
April 5, 2022
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/TimedText:Uptown Funk.ogg.vi.srt |
---|
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. No consensus to delete prior to withdrawl. —ScottyWong— 23:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC) TimedText:Uptown Funk.ogg.vi.srt
|
April 4, 2022
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User time zone editnotice |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Template:User time zone editnotice
Editnotice created in late 2021 with no apparent adoption, unless searching doesn't find uses of editnotices. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Toby Bensimon |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. —ScottyWong— 23:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Draft:Toby Bensimon
essentially an advertisement DGG ( talk ) 07:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Future April Fools' Day pages |
---|
The result of the discussion was: no consensus for 2024, delete the rest. ✗plicit 12:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Future April Fools' Day pages
No need to create pages so far into the future. The listing of these pages at WP:April Fools only serves to clog the viewers, preventing them from viewing April Fools' pranks that did occur. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
|
April 3, 2022
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Restoration of socialism |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. —ScottyWong— 23:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC) User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Restoration of socialism
Per reasoning at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Baltics; Wikipedia isn’t a place for tankies to promote historical revisionism. Dronebogus (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Against falsifications of history |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. —ScottyWong— 23:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC) User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Against falsifications of history
Per reasoning at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Baltics; Wikipedia isn’t a place for tankies to promote historical revisionism. Dronebogus (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/ProFidel |
---|
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. —ScottyWong— 23:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC) User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/ProFidel
Per reasoning at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Baltics; Wikipedia isn’t a place for tankies to promote historical revisionism. Dronebogus (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Khrushchev |
---|
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. —ScottyWong— 23:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC) User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Khrushchev
Minimally used political attack page created by soapboxy user Dronebogus (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Ceaușescu |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. —ScottyWong— 23:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC) User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Ceaușescu
Per reasoning at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Baltics; Wikipedia isn’t a place for tankies to promote historical revisionism. Dronebogus (talk) 05:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
|
April 2, 2022
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wolfdog406/UBX/heterosexual |
---|
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. —ScottyWong— 23:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC) User:Wolfdog406/UBX/heterosexual
Barely in use, seems like it could be intended or construed as a refutation of the numerous anti-homophobia boxes that use the phrase “straight not narrow” or variations (ex. User:Oxguy3/myboxes/Straight not narrow User:StuffOfInterest/Userboxes/User not narrow User:Albill/Userbox/User notnarrow User:Disavian/Userboxes/Not Narrow User:UBX/notnarrow User:Jw21/deUBdomain/notnarrow alt) Dronebogus (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. —ScottyWong— 23:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC) User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор
Nearly the entirety of this userpage is political userboxes bar a couple of Wiki-related ones at the top, and the revision logs of this page show that increasingly inflammatory userboxes are the only thing this user has ever added to this page. Many of these userboxes are currently nominated for deletion, some of them were recently deleted for genocide denial, and many of the others likely wouldn't survive a deletion discussion themselves. Pretty extreme case of WP:UP#NOT. Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rampyari Gurjar |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Malformed nomination, no rationale given by nominator. The nomination was malformed. The discussion had no deletion rationale give, Closed pending education of the nominator (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Draft:Rampyari Gurjar
The nominator did not give a reason
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Putin |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. —ScottyWong— 22:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Putin
April Fool's joke in poor taste. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia (3rd nomination) ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 00:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
|
April 1, 2022
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Bullitt County, Kentucky/production |
---|
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. I doubt anyone would oppose the page being marked as historical. —ScottyWong— 22:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Talk:Bullitt County, Kentucky/production
Abandoned supbage consisting of " dumping text and media (removed, to be added, for consideration, for reference, etc.) useful to the production of the Bullitt County article." Doesn't seem to have been used since 2011 Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Old business
April 3, 2022
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Apartheid in Palestine and the Baltics |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 12:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC) User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Apartheid in Palestine and the Baltics
Divisive political userbox that seems designed to baselessly stoke ethno-national conflict. Dronebogus (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Malvinas |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 13:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Template:User Malvinas
Stupid irredentist nonsense demanding the annexation of a tiny British territory that is overwhelmingly in favor[1] of remaining that way. Dronebogus (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC) I am withdrawing because this seems to be more trouble than it’s worth and the consensus is leaning keep. Dronebogus (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
|